SamuraiSquirrel
Well-Known Member
I started brewing over six months ago now. I have done 6 or 7 all-grain brews. They have all turned out great. My efficiency has consistently been between 70-75% batch sparging in a ten gallon cooler with a copper manifold.
I've read through countless hundred page threads about batch vs. fly sparging. People using both methods claiming to get 80-87% with the occasional person claiming that they got 93%.
So I thought to myself "wow, does my process really suck that much that others are getting over 15% more efficiency points than me?"
It's not that 70% is unacceptable by any means. I know the amount of grain used to compensate is pretty marginal. However, since it is a hobby, reading about this stuff just interests me and I enjoy trying to refine and perfect my process as much as possible.
Then while doing my last batch I had a thought. I have been calculating "brewhouse efficiency" for all my past batches since this seems to be most useful in allowing you to plan for recipes to get the volume and gravity needed while accounting for trub loss. Suprisingly, my most recent batch was spot on my usual 70%
This past batch was an ipa and had about a gallon of trub due to the large volume of hops used in the recipe. So out of curiousity I calculated my "mash efficiency" or "extraction efficiency" (for some reason i had never calculated this before) using preboil gravity and volume and to my surprise it was 86%! Maybe my efficiency doesn't suck after all? or does it?
So after all that, my question is this. In all these efficiency arguments and claims you read on here where people are saying "I get 86%, i get 82%, etc.", which efficiency are people using? For comparibility purposes "mash efficiency" seems more proper to use as it is consistent from batch to batch. Trub volume and losses can vary depending on recipe and system design so comparing brewhouse efficiency seems useless. If you are comparing an ipa with six ounces of hops and a gallon of trub loss it is going to be a lot lower than a pale ale where you had an ounce of hops and sucked the kettle bone dry. However, your mash efficiency should be fairly consistent.
I've read through countless hundred page threads about batch vs. fly sparging. People using both methods claiming to get 80-87% with the occasional person claiming that they got 93%.
So I thought to myself "wow, does my process really suck that much that others are getting over 15% more efficiency points than me?"
It's not that 70% is unacceptable by any means. I know the amount of grain used to compensate is pretty marginal. However, since it is a hobby, reading about this stuff just interests me and I enjoy trying to refine and perfect my process as much as possible.
Then while doing my last batch I had a thought. I have been calculating "brewhouse efficiency" for all my past batches since this seems to be most useful in allowing you to plan for recipes to get the volume and gravity needed while accounting for trub loss. Suprisingly, my most recent batch was spot on my usual 70%
This past batch was an ipa and had about a gallon of trub due to the large volume of hops used in the recipe. So out of curiousity I calculated my "mash efficiency" or "extraction efficiency" (for some reason i had never calculated this before) using preboil gravity and volume and to my surprise it was 86%! Maybe my efficiency doesn't suck after all? or does it?
So after all that, my question is this. In all these efficiency arguments and claims you read on here where people are saying "I get 86%, i get 82%, etc.", which efficiency are people using? For comparibility purposes "mash efficiency" seems more proper to use as it is consistent from batch to batch. Trub volume and losses can vary depending on recipe and system design so comparing brewhouse efficiency seems useless. If you are comparing an ipa with six ounces of hops and a gallon of trub loss it is going to be a lot lower than a pale ale where you had an ounce of hops and sucked the kettle bone dry. However, your mash efficiency should be fairly consistent.